Otdfbt

Why does the 6502 have the BIT instruction?

Integrating an absolute function using Mathematica

What is the object moving across the ceiling in this stock footage?

Is the first derivative operation on a signal a causal system?

Array Stutter Implementation

Why is this Simple Puzzle impossible to solve?

Should I disclose a colleague's illness (that I should not know about) when others badmouth him

Plot twist where the antagonist wins

How did early x86 BIOS programmers manage to program full blown TUIs given very few bytes of ROM/EPROM?

How to capture more stars?

Identifying an object pointer by generating and using a unique ID

Comment dirait-on « I was gonna say... » ?

Tic-tac-toe for the terminal, written in C

Is there a way to make it so the cursor is included when I prtscr key?

Can't remember the name of this game

Looking for a soft substance that doesn't dissolve underwater

Mother abusing my finances

Apparent Ring of Craters on the Moon

How do you say “buy” in the sense of “believe”?

Where is the logic in castrating fighters?

How long does it take to crack RSA 1024 with a PC?

What is the largest (size) solid object ever dropped from an airplane to impact the ground in freefall?

Rests in pickup measure (anacrusis)

I unknowingly submitted plagiarised work

Why commonly or frequently used fonts sizes are even numbers like 10px, 12px, 16px, 24px, or 32px?

Is there an optimal font size?Use of typekit fontsIs there a unified font size metric across all applications?Reasonable (big) default font sizesBigger font sizes trendIs it a bad idea to use fluid font sizes for titles?Should I use different minimum font size depending on locale?Choosing font sizes for responsive designShould I use Ubuntu fonts in Web App and Mobile Apps?Why monospaced fonts are not used as frequently as serif and sans-serif fonts, outside coding?

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;

22

5

There are some sites still use odd numbers for font sizes, but why
we used "commonly" even numbers?

OR appears on default in selecting font sizes usually at 12px.

font typography font-sizes type

share|improve this question

edited May 14 at 10:02

Sknny

asked May 14 at 5:13

SknnySknny

658819

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  My groggy mind is saying this this morning. I believe it started as the font size of the standard UNIX terminal at some point back in the day. Someone may prove me wrong, and I should know the answer to this but I'm worn out, beat up, and unmotivated. That's why this is a comment and not an answer. The even sizes are because it's easier to divide to get even numbers than odd ones.
  
  – Rob
  May 14 at 12:50
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Are we? In my copy of MS Word, for example, the drop-down list for font-sizes reads something like 5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8, 9, 10, 10.5, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 36, 48, 72. So, 1/3 aren't even and almost 1/5 aren't integer, and the even ones are mostly the larger ones where the relative difference between, say, 72 and 73 is negligible. Also, the larger ones are not so much even as they are multiples of 12, which has well-known advantages. And the default size for a second-level heading is 13. The standard font size in the macOS terminal is 11.
  
  – Jörg W Mittag
  May 14 at 16:28
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @xiota: 12 is the smallest number that can be divided by 1, 2, 3, 4. 60 is the smallest number that can be divided by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. That's why the numbers 12 and 60 appear so often everywhere: a dozen is a common unit, a shock is a dozen dozen, 12 hours of daylight, 12 hours of night, 12 months, 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 360 degrees. Originally, this allowed common people without mathematical training to divide things amongst themselves without having to deal with fractions … or having to hack up their sheep in thirds. 72 has a similar property: it is 2*2*2*3*3*3.
  
  – Jörg W Mittag
  May 14 at 19:40
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JörgWMittag: out of curiosity, is "shock" really a term for 144? I've heard of a "gross" (popularized by Bilbo Baggins), but "shock" is new to me.
  
  – Jon of All Trades
  May 14 at 21:30
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JonofAllTrades: Haha, sorry. You are right, it is "gross" both in English and my native German. A "Schock" in German is five dozen (and I don't think it exists in English). There is also a "great gross", which is a dozen gross.
  
  – Jörg W Mittag
  May 15 at 4:55
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 4 more comments

22

5

There are some sites still use odd numbers for font sizes, but why
we used "commonly" even numbers?

OR appears on default in selecting font sizes usually at 12px.

font typography font-sizes type

share|improve this question

edited May 14 at 10:02

Sknny

asked May 14 at 5:13

SknnySknny

658819

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  My groggy mind is saying this this morning. I believe it started as the font size of the standard UNIX terminal at some point back in the day. Someone may prove me wrong, and I should know the answer to this but I'm worn out, beat up, and unmotivated. That's why this is a comment and not an answer. The even sizes are because it's easier to divide to get even numbers than odd ones.
  
  – Rob
  May 14 at 12:50
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Are we? In my copy of MS Word, for example, the drop-down list for font-sizes reads something like 5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8, 9, 10, 10.5, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 36, 48, 72. So, 1/3 aren't even and almost 1/5 aren't integer, and the even ones are mostly the larger ones where the relative difference between, say, 72 and 73 is negligible. Also, the larger ones are not so much even as they are multiples of 12, which has well-known advantages. And the default size for a second-level heading is 13. The standard font size in the macOS terminal is 11.
  
  – Jörg W Mittag
  May 14 at 16:28
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @xiota: 12 is the smallest number that can be divided by 1, 2, 3, 4. 60 is the smallest number that can be divided by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. That's why the numbers 12 and 60 appear so often everywhere: a dozen is a common unit, a shock is a dozen dozen, 12 hours of daylight, 12 hours of night, 12 months, 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 360 degrees. Originally, this allowed common people without mathematical training to divide things amongst themselves without having to deal with fractions … or having to hack up their sheep in thirds. 72 has a similar property: it is 2*2*2*3*3*3.
  
  – Jörg W Mittag
  May 14 at 19:40
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JörgWMittag: out of curiosity, is "shock" really a term for 144? I've heard of a "gross" (popularized by Bilbo Baggins), but "shock" is new to me.
  
  – Jon of All Trades
  May 14 at 21:30
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JonofAllTrades: Haha, sorry. You are right, it is "gross" both in English and my native German. A "Schock" in German is five dozen (and I don't think it exists in English). There is also a "great gross", which is a dozen gross.
  
  – Jörg W Mittag
  May 15 at 4:55
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 4 more comments

There are some sites still use odd numbers for font sizes, but why
we used "commonly" even numbers?

OR appears on default in selecting font sizes usually at 12px.

font typography font-sizes type

share|improve this question

edited May 14 at 10:02

Sknny

asked May 14 at 5:13

SknnySknny

658819

share|improve this question

edited May 14 at 10:02

Sknny

asked May 14 at 5:13

SknnySknny

658819

share|improve this question

edited May 14 at 10:02

Sknny

asked May 14 at 5:13

SknnySknny

658819

asked May 14 at 5:13

SknnySknny

658819

asked May 14 at 5:13

SknnySknny

658819

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

28

The point is a measurement system inherited from traditional print typography. It has had various definitions, much like the inch and foot. With the introduction of PostScript, it has been defined to be 1/72 inch. I don't recall the specific history, but the use of certain font sizes long predates computing. They continue to be used because they work, and there is no pressing need for change.

Apparently, px doesn't really stand for "pixels". Rather, it is defined as 1/96 inch. For traditional displays, which are 96 dpi, a px is equivalent to a pixel. However, for printers and high-dpi displays, it's different. Converting some common point sizes to px, we get:

• 14pt = 14*96/72 = 18.7 px.


• 12pt = 12*96/72 = 16 px.


• 10pt = 10*96/72 = 13.3 px.

The conversion results in fractional pixels that cannot be displayed accurately on standard displays, even with anti-aliasing and sub-pixel rendering tricks. So web designers may choose to round up or down, according to their preference, habit, or copying of stylesheets. (For example, 13.3 rounded up is 14, even. Rounded down is 13, odd.)

---

This has to do with technical dependency.

There is no "technical dependency" that affects choice of even vs odd pixel sizes.

Just like icon sizes, font sizes or any other fixed dimension in pixels are maintained at even numbers to support scaling.

There is nothing about even vs odd numbers that affects scaling. For instance, 80% of 24 = 19.2; 80% of 15 = 12. However, 75% of 24 = 18; 75% of 15 = 11.25.

... browsers cannot render pixels in decimal.

Huh? My browser works with base 10 just fine.

share|improve this answer

edited May 15 at 7:09

answered May 14 at 8:38

xiotaxiota

976216

• 
  
  
  

  
  8
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I'm pretty sure by "browsers cannot render pixels in decimal" he meant browsers can't render a non-integer amount of pixels.
  
  – Addison
  May 14 at 15:19
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @GlenYates: Only in TeX. Like the answer says, everyone had different definitions; the PostScript point is just as "correct" as any other.
  
  – kundor
  May 14 at 16:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @kundor: Not only in TeX. That's simply the American pica and point. Europe had a different one (Didot), and it's just as correct. And in digital typography, 1/72 is the widespread and ubiquitous definition (even if TeX does it differently, it's only a niche product).
  
  – Gábor
  May 14 at 19:16
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @kundor, 1/72.27 is 0.013837 (rounded, of course).
  
  – Gábor
  May 14 at 20:04
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @kundor: while mathematically true, that's hindsight from our era. Back when it was determined, there was no need to measure that precisely, especially with a unit that described distances visible to the human eye. Yes, there is a very small difference from the eight decimal onwards, true but I really don't think that indiscernible difference is of any consequence. For all practical intents, there are only three significant uints: the Didot (of historical interest now), the American/TeX and the digital one.
  
  – Gábor
  May 14 at 20:31
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 6 more comments

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "102"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fux.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125641%2fwhy-commonly-or-frequently-used-fonts-sizes-are-even-numbers-like-10px-12px-16%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

28

The point is a measurement system inherited from traditional print typography. It has had various definitions, much like the inch and foot. With the introduction of PostScript, it has been defined to be 1/72 inch. I don't recall the specific history, but the use of certain font sizes long predates computing. They continue to be used because they work, and there is no pressing need for change.

Apparently, px doesn't really stand for "pixels". Rather, it is defined as 1/96 inch. For traditional displays, which are 96 dpi, a px is equivalent to a pixel. However, for printers and high-dpi displays, it's different. Converting some common point sizes to px, we get:

• 14pt = 14*96/72 = 18.7 px.


• 12pt = 12*96/72 = 16 px.


• 10pt = 10*96/72 = 13.3 px.

The conversion results in fractional pixels that cannot be displayed accurately on standard displays, even with anti-aliasing and sub-pixel rendering tricks. So web designers may choose to round up or down, according to their preference, habit, or copying of stylesheets. (For example, 13.3 rounded up is 14, even. Rounded down is 13, odd.)

---

This has to do with technical dependency.

There is no "technical dependency" that affects choice of even vs odd pixel sizes.

Just like icon sizes, font sizes or any other fixed dimension in pixels are maintained at even numbers to support scaling.

There is nothing about even vs odd numbers that affects scaling. For instance, 80% of 24 = 19.2; 80% of 15 = 12. However, 75% of 24 = 18; 75% of 15 = 11.25.

... browsers cannot render pixels in decimal.

Huh? My browser works with base 10 just fine.

share|improve this answer

edited May 15 at 7:09

answered May 14 at 8:38

xiotaxiota

976216

• 
  
  
  

  
  8
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I'm pretty sure by "browsers cannot render pixels in decimal" he meant browsers can't render a non-integer amount of pixels.
  
  – Addison
  May 14 at 15:19
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @GlenYates: Only in TeX. Like the answer says, everyone had different definitions; the PostScript point is just as "correct" as any other.
  
  – kundor
  May 14 at 16:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @kundor: Not only in TeX. That's simply the American pica and point. Europe had a different one (Didot), and it's just as correct. And in digital typography, 1/72 is the widespread and ubiquitous definition (even if TeX does it differently, it's only a niche product).
  
  – Gábor
  May 14 at 19:16
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @kundor, 1/72.27 is 0.013837 (rounded, of course).
  
  – Gábor
  May 14 at 20:04
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @kundor: while mathematically true, that's hindsight from our era. Back when it was determined, there was no need to measure that precisely, especially with a unit that described distances visible to the human eye. Yes, there is a very small difference from the eight decimal onwards, true but I really don't think that indiscernible difference is of any consequence. For all practical intents, there are only three significant uints: the Didot (of historical interest now), the American/TeX and the digital one.
  
  – Gábor
  May 14 at 20:31
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 6 more comments

28

The point is a measurement system inherited from traditional print typography. It has had various definitions, much like the inch and foot. With the introduction of PostScript, it has been defined to be 1/72 inch. I don't recall the specific history, but the use of certain font sizes long predates computing. They continue to be used because they work, and there is no pressing need for change.

Apparently, px doesn't really stand for "pixels". Rather, it is defined as 1/96 inch. For traditional displays, which are 96 dpi, a px is equivalent to a pixel. However, for printers and high-dpi displays, it's different. Converting some common point sizes to px, we get:

• 14pt = 14*96/72 = 18.7 px.


• 12pt = 12*96/72 = 16 px.


• 10pt = 10*96/72 = 13.3 px.

The conversion results in fractional pixels that cannot be displayed accurately on standard displays, even with anti-aliasing and sub-pixel rendering tricks. So web designers may choose to round up or down, according to their preference, habit, or copying of stylesheets. (For example, 13.3 rounded up is 14, even. Rounded down is 13, odd.)

---

This has to do with technical dependency.

There is no "technical dependency" that affects choice of even vs odd pixel sizes.

Just like icon sizes, font sizes or any other fixed dimension in pixels are maintained at even numbers to support scaling.

There is nothing about even vs odd numbers that affects scaling. For instance, 80% of 24 = 19.2; 80% of 15 = 12. However, 75% of 24 = 18; 75% of 15 = 11.25.

... browsers cannot render pixels in decimal.

Huh? My browser works with base 10 just fine.

share|improve this answer

edited May 15 at 7:09

answered May 14 at 8:38

xiotaxiota

976216

• 
  
  
  

  
  8
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I'm pretty sure by "browsers cannot render pixels in decimal" he meant browsers can't render a non-integer amount of pixels.
  
  – Addison
  May 14 at 15:19
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @GlenYates: Only in TeX. Like the answer says, everyone had different definitions; the PostScript point is just as "correct" as any other.
  
  – kundor
  May 14 at 16:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @kundor: Not only in TeX. That's simply the American pica and point. Europe had a different one (Didot), and it's just as correct. And in digital typography, 1/72 is the widespread and ubiquitous definition (even if TeX does it differently, it's only a niche product).
  
  – Gábor
  May 14 at 19:16
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @kundor, 1/72.27 is 0.013837 (rounded, of course).
  
  – Gábor
  May 14 at 20:04
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @kundor: while mathematically true, that's hindsight from our era. Back when it was determined, there was no need to measure that precisely, especially with a unit that described distances visible to the human eye. Yes, there is a very small difference from the eight decimal onwards, true but I really don't think that indiscernible difference is of any consequence. For all practical intents, there are only three significant uints: the Didot (of historical interest now), the American/TeX and the digital one.
  
  – Gábor
  May 14 at 20:31
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 6 more comments

The point is a measurement system inherited from traditional print typography. It has had various definitions, much like the inch and foot. With the introduction of PostScript, it has been defined to be 1/72 inch. I don't recall the specific history, but the use of certain font sizes long predates computing. They continue to be used because they work, and there is no pressing need for change.

Apparently, px doesn't really stand for "pixels". Rather, it is defined as 1/96 inch. For traditional displays, which are 96 dpi, a px is equivalent to a pixel. However, for printers and high-dpi displays, it's different. Converting some common point sizes to px, we get:

• 14pt = 14*96/72 = 18.7 px.


• 12pt = 12*96/72 = 16 px.


• 10pt = 10*96/72 = 13.3 px.

The conversion results in fractional pixels that cannot be displayed accurately on standard displays, even with anti-aliasing and sub-pixel rendering tricks. So web designers may choose to round up or down, according to their preference, habit, or copying of stylesheets. (For example, 13.3 rounded up is 14, even. Rounded down is 13, odd.)

---

This has to do with technical dependency.

There is no "technical dependency" that affects choice of even vs odd pixel sizes.

Just like icon sizes, font sizes or any other fixed dimension in pixels are maintained at even numbers to support scaling.

There is nothing about even vs odd numbers that affects scaling. For instance, 80% of 24 = 19.2; 80% of 15 = 12. However, 75% of 24 = 18; 75% of 15 = 11.25.

... browsers cannot render pixels in decimal.

Huh? My browser works with base 10 just fine.

share|improve this answer

edited May 15 at 7:09

answered May 14 at 8:38

xiotaxiota

976216

share|improve this answer

edited May 15 at 7:09

answered May 14 at 8:38

xiotaxiota

976216

answered May 14 at 8:38

xiotaxiota

976216

answered May 14 at 8:38

xiotaxiota

976216